Alignment in D&DN...

[Janaxstrus]

Not, it's not. And, what's more, I would argue vehemently that there is no such thing that is too iconic to do away with completely. Everything is on the table.

Really?

How did that work out with 4e? How much market share did they lose to Paizo, who maintained those iconic things and those "sacred cows"?

Exactly.

Leave the 9 alone.

 

[Sunseeker]

Really?

How did that work out with 4e? How much market share did they lose to Paizo, who maintained those iconic things and those "sacred cows"?

Exactly.

Leave the 9 alone.

You know this topic is really making me want a steak.

I'm just saying talking about slaughtering sacred cows and on the table and so on.


Wizards should experiment with new things, leaving out or modifying other things. They may discover something even better!(Such as my patented 27-alignment system!) They may discover something that seemed good is bad, or something that they thought would be bad actually playtests really well. I agree with the sentiment that everything is prospectivly "on the table", but that shouldn't be an excuse to slaughter the whole herd. Of course neither should it be an excuse to not so much as even touch a hair on their heads.

 

[dkyle]

It's the duality of the system that allows us to define character actions. Lawful and Chaotic are a linear spectrum. Lawful to Chaotic combined with Good to evil make for at least a 2-dimensional spectrum, allowing a much greater range of expression for both characters and DMs.

Alignment shouldn't "define" character actions. It's far too simplistic for that.

Alignment is just a characteristic tendency of the character. Being Lawful shouldn't mean that you have to uphold all laws at all times. It should just mean that the character's general outlook on life and society is one that emphasizes laws and/or codes of honor. Being Chaotic doesn't mean you refuse to obey all laws, it just means you might care more about individual rights and liberties, and believe in doing what you think is right (which others might view as good or evil), no matter what some authority figures tell you.

You say that laws are subjective, and they are, but that's kind of besides the point. It's enough that a Lawful character even truly cares about what the laws are. If he decides that a law is unjust, he's still Lawful. A Chaotic character wouldn't care about "just" or "unjust", only whether it's more beneficial to him, or his objectives (which might be altruistic), to obey or break the law.

 

[Zireael]

But then the problem becomes "is that a learned trait or inherant trait"? Now, a debate breaks out if the Orclings can be "saved", which slows down the process of kicking down the next door. Using alignment, one quick Detect Evil or Know Alignment and you put them sword in a merciful way.

I'm not saying its a bad thing to move to traits and to have moral issues - it makes for a deep and interesting game. But alignment brings something that is iconic D&D - you can slaughter orcs without blinking an eye.

I don't want to discuss learned vs. inherent traits. They are just "alignment traits", as arbitrary as alignment in previous editions was. No one disputes whether a paladin is born LG or learns to be LG.

 

[whydirt]

Ideally, alignment would be one of the optional rules modules that WotC keeps talking about. The options could include the classic 9 alignments, just Law vs. Chaos or Good vs. Evil, or something like the d20 Modern allegiances system.

Just keep it out of the core game.

 

[Grydan]

Whatever system they put in, I don't plan on using it.

So as long as they don't tie any non-optional mechanics to it, they can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Sunseeker]

Alignment shouldn't "define" character actions. It's far too simplistic for that.

Alignment is just a characteristic tendency of the character. Being Lawful shouldn't mean that you have to uphold all laws at all times. It should just mean that the character's general outlook on life and society is one that emphasizes laws and/or codes of honor. Being Chaotic doesn't mean you refuse to obey all laws, it just means you might care more about individual rights and liberties, and believe in doing what you think is right (which others might view as good or evil), no matter what some authority figures tell you.

You're taking what I wrote far to literally. And traditionally speaking, "neutral good" is the "generally inclined to follow the law but not so pressed as to really give a doof one way or the other".
Generally speaking, I've seen chaotic as a more "self interested" alignment.

You say that laws are subjective, and they are, but that's kind of besides the point. It's enough that a Lawful character even truly cares about what the laws are. If he decides that a law is unjust, he's still Lawful. A Chaotic character wouldn't care about "just" or "unjust", only whether it's more beneficial to him, or his objectives (which might be altruistic), to obey or break the law.

Allowing a character to just decide if every law is unjust at their whim is a great way to make having laws at all completly pointless. A character could call themselves Lawful Good all day long and still go around killing babies because they just decided that the law or taboos against that really isn't good or lawful.

 

[amerigoV]

I don't want to discuss learned vs. inherent traits. They are just "alignment traits", as arbitrary as alignment in previous editions was. No one disputes whether a paladin is born LG or learns to be LG.

If you are proposing (say) a skeleton of alignments with traits underneath the help define it (something like "Orcs - CE (or just Evil perhaps) - Cruel and Sadistic") that would rock, actually. That would ding on the Detec-o-meter and give the DM something extra to work with.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Interesting point! If you had to slaughter a sacred cow just to make the game stand different, which one would you pick?

I would never do it just to make the game stand different. If there weren't a good reason, then it would make no sense. My point is that I would not stand up a series of sacred cows for no reason other than just because. The obvious example is this thread and my first reply on alignment. Get rid of it. I offered a counter-proposal to what you currently see as alignment. Another example could be ability scores. Do we really need all six? Do we need four defenses or can we get away with fewer (or add more)? I don't have answers for these, but the point is that through a reasonable design, each thing should be considered. Nothing should be dropped and the cost of revising certain sacred cows may obviously be much higher than others (dropping an ability score, for example, has a huge repercussion on backward's compatibility, while alignment really doesn't).

 

[Dragoslav]

Allowing a character to just decide if every law is unjust at their whim is a great way to make having laws at all completly pointless. A character could call themselves Lawful Good all day long and still go around killing babies because they just decided that the law or taboos against that really isn't good or lawful.

Then that would make the character Evil, regardless of what they said about it. The Good/Evil dichotomy is pretty cut and dry, but Lawful/Chaotic is where most people have trouble (and understandably so, because it's a difficult relationship even in reality).

"Lawful" has nothing to do with the legal system operating (or not operating) wherever the character is from or happens to be; "principled" is better word for describing it. Each juridicial law is grounded in a principle, but principles aren't formed, at a metaphysical level, from looking at the law. So a LG paladin who rides into a barony might decide that the baron needs to be deposed because of his cruel treatment of peasants, while the LE baron thinks he is only doing as is his right because he believes in a rigid social hierarchy.